No one is arguing about public property, only state owned property.
That's right, there is nothing wrong with the 10 commandments. Its called principle. The government promises not to endorse any religion, then a government owned building puts up a monument with a symbol that represents 4 religions.
That is entire controversy in legal terms.
That's funny. My copy says,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Does that mean 'respecting,' as in to show admiration for, or more generally regarding/concerning. The power to define religion via law is the power to establish religion.
Search the US Code, it is on line. There are surprisingly many uses of the word 'religion,' (why?) and many terms defined, but one phrase you will/should never see is 'the term 'religion' shall mean...' It is not a mystery why. Not even the IRS, with a ten foot pole...
The constitution explicitely forbids any 'establishment of religion.' "What is and what is not religion in America?" is not something that the Congress/state can declare, for any purpose whatsoever.
You and I are perfectly free to 'worship Tuna' as our religion, and if you want, you can become a fully ordained minister in the Church of Chicken of the Sea, without consequence to anyone' freedom. But, if the state can declare a philosophy 'not a religion,' then it can grant itself the power to impose that on all of us, in the same sense of the damage to our freedom that would be implied by a breach of the establishement clause, the imposition of a singular state religion.
Full disclosure. I am not a Christian, nor am I a member of any church or religion. I am a devout, non-aligned agnostic theist: I believe in the existence of my creator, the Universe, as it is, and declare it miracle enough for me. But, I am uncomfortable as Hell with the way that the 1st Amendment has been selectively abused, and see it as a failed firewall.
Do athiests believe in God? Do they believe that God is 'real'? Are they adherents to any religion referencing God? Of course not. And yet, they have been able to appeal to the state for 'protection' from what they claim is an 'establishement of religion' in public/state institutions--which was in fact, simple passive tolerence of religion anywhere in America. In permitting this, simple passive tolerence has been replaced by focused aggressive intolerence, as the meaning of the 1st A. When such curious appeals to the state -- appeals to prohibit the free exercise of religion anywhere in America -- are made, it is necessary for the state to make a distinction, "Is this religion, yes or no?" And, when it decides 'yes', it prohibits itself from 'supporting' any hint of that activity in the public sphere--including, passive tolerence of--, and when it decides 'no', it allowes itself full embrace of that activity.
In order to exercise that judgement, it must, by necessity, create lists of activities in America, either explicitely or implicitely, by definition of the term, "These are religion, these are not." It must do exactly what it is prohibited from doing. That is a difficult, in fact, impossible task, so we humans muddle on, and muddle we have.
I don't beleive that the Gods of the Theatre are real. I am not a Thespian. I don't worship the Sacred Space of the Theatre. You could call me a 'theatre athiest.' I, like athiests, have a minority view of the religion of the theatre. So, when I, as a minority, appeal to the state for 'protection' for my child in public schools from religions I don't even believe in, like theatre, does the state ask me, "Do you believe the theatre Gods are real?", like athiests are not asked? Does the state just implicitely 'know' that some supernatural gods are real, and other supernatural gods are unreal? (If you can read that question without laughing, then re-read it until you can't.) On what basis could my appeal for '1st Amendment' protections be rejected by the state, except to declare that 'Thespianism is not a religion for the purposes of 1swt Amendment protection' or 'Thespianism is a religion for the purposes of 1st Amendment protection?'
Then, ditto: Gaien Environmentalism, the Gods of Football, and my favorite religion/not a religion, Social Scientology? As well, hasn't the selective abuse of the 1st Amendment in fact elevated the Christian God to 'real supernatural God' status, if appeals can be rejected for 'unreal supernatural Gods' based religions?
If there are pictures of grass on our currency, can I get them removed? Or, rocks? Or, trees? Granted not everybody, not even me, worship rocks or trees, but some fringe do. Is that mere fact enough to do me serious harm when I am subjected to their religion, regardless of how offensive I find it? Can I tolerate the mere existence of things I do not believe in or reverence? Or, by allowing mentions of trees in public, or planting them on the lawn of the whitehouse, does that establish the religion of treehuggerism and impede the free practice of any other religion or practice of no religion?
Now, ask yourself again if 'the power to define that term--religion' is the power to eat freedom in America.
The mere existence of other people’s religious proxies is not an establishment of religion.
I could be a total ignoramus on the subject of real supernatural religions versus unreal supernatural religions, so that is why I am going to wait patiently for somebody to reasonably explain the difference to me, or how anybody, including Congress, could possibly distinguish between insincere worship on the third down to an unreal god and sincere worship in the third pew to a real god. It would be ridiculous, not because the veneration of football is or is not a religion, but because the government would try to classify anything as either a tolerable or intolerable religion in a country established upon the principle of religious tolerance.
